paracaidista508
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by paracaidista508
-
-
Article states they used husbands and donors sperm.
“The doctor recommended that Ashby undergo a procedure in which she would be inseminated with sperm from her husband and an anonymous donor who matched the couple’s specifications”
-
44 minutes ago, Fether said:
to be honest, This is so interesting to me . Why would someone freak out? Is the child no longer yours?
I say this fully knowing that I too would be a little disturbed if this happened to me, but what would an appropriate reaction be?
Punish him for breaking a law... but beyond that why should I be disturbed? Do the last ‘x’ number of years all of a sudden change?
If I grew up in a house and I was told that the support beams were made of solid Titanium, but I find out 20 years later via x-ray examination that they are made of steel, should I be upset? The only reason I’m upset is because I discovered via a scientific process I don’t even understand that something I had done 20 years ago wasn’t as it had seemed. Does this mean that the last 20 years I was living a lie? Does the way I treat my home change?
If there were tons of them in this geographic area, there are pretty good chances there are a few brothers and sisters now married to each other. Imagine finding out you married your sibling. Just sayin....I guess in Idaho and utah that's not a big deal?...no?
Your father isn't your father and the real one is a loony tune. It's one thing knowing that growing up, but imagine one day as a 30 year old waking up to that news?
-
Im betting once she releases his DNA code, there will be at least 50 cases discovered in the next year or two. IN the next several weeks hundreds of his former patients are gonna freak out when they see this story.
-
Noble cause corruption
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchNoble cause corruption is corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system, suggesting that people will use unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals,[1] a result which appears to benefit the greater good. Where traditional corruption is defined by personal gain,[2]noble cause corruptions forms when someone is convinced of their righteousness, and will do anything within their powers to achieve the desired result. An example of noble cause corruption is police misconduct "committed in the name of good ends"[3] or neglect of due process through “a moral commitment to make the world a safer place to live."[4]
Conditions for such corruption usually occur where individuals feel no administrative accountability, lack morale and leadership, and lose faith in the criminal justice system.[5] These conditions can be compounded by arrogance and weak supervision.
I don't have a problem with BYU having an honor code. Lots of organizations have similar features for a variety of reasons. The problem arises when they use a police force to enforce it in cases where there is no violation of the law. Defenders of that practice never have a problem with it until they become victim of police misconduct. Police officers as a whole hate misconduct because it is generally only a few who engage in it and when discovered well the community treats all of us as if we are the ones who did it. This treatment lasts for years. An agency here in the Phoenix area had a sex scandal almost 30 years ago involving probably a dozen people- some were lds. To this day, their cops are getting an earful about it from people who were not even alive when it happened. Oddly enough, Im finding out BYU PD and their former security force (pre police days) had a reputation for wearing wires, staking out various locations, following students off campus etc... in order to honor code them. I have never hear these stories, but after reading commentary on some of these news articles im finding it is well known in Utah. One article I found the police chief essentially admitted to placing a fake ad in order to entrap a gay kid. ...ha wow that's some police work right there.
Every agency has a story and for the 99% who had nothing to do with it- well it is a nightmare because we are the ones who take the heat for it. Same will happen to BYU. Additionally, the Police Agencies surrounding BYU will probably stop cooperating with them except for very clearly criminal matters. -
20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
It is very gratifying to see you finally using the source I provided to you. Before replying, I think it’s important to reiterate a few points. First, BYUPD at no time passed the written police report on to BYUHCO; rather, BYUPD verbally provided some salient details (exactly which details, we still don’t know) on to BYUCHO. Second, barely three days after that conversation happened BYU’s Title IX office received a full copy of the written report from Randolph, which was passed on to BYUHCO. Third, Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman stated in April of 2016 that BYU had done nothing illegal; and Randolph’s own Internal Affairs department cleared him of wrongdoing in his actions with the police report. So, at this point, we’re arguing over the release of information that BYU would undeniably have received lawfully by the end of the week. And finally, the Utah AG's office has had the results of the DPS investigation into BYUPD's use of police reports since at least July of 2017; and the Utah County Attorney's office has known about BYUPD's use of the Spillman system for about a year and a half before then--and still no charges have been filed.
Agreed, they stated BYUs involvement did not interfere with the prosecution of the rape case. That still does not justify illegal access of the report. Just because one ended up getting the report later on in a legal means apparently, does not justify the illegal access and verbalized dissemination of information at an earlier time. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to go search a persons house for weed while they are at work, find some, go get a warrant and then come back to get it and arrest them. You have to have legal cause for the search in the first place . BYU had no cause other than an honor code issue which they admit is the reason they accessed the report.
Additionally, you seem to think that just verbally passing on info is ok, it is not.
'We will not stand' for abuses • Policies governing how Utah County agencies can share and access records stress that the information in the database is sensitive and is intended to be viewed only by those whose job is directly connected to law enforcement.
A police agency can only share its own records with its mayor, city manager or government heads — but data from other agencies can not be released without approval, according to a redacted version of the shared system policy released to The Tribune.
While the policy prohibits users from sharing information from another agency's case or investigation — "including verbalizations of content, digital copying or printing material" — it does not state what consequences an agency or user could face for breaking the rules.
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4451529&itype=CMSID
Now, with that in mind, let's go through the examples you cite:
1. Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO interfere with Provo's investigation or prosecution of the rape case? No. Provo PD already had Barney's testimony and, apparently, Seidu's confession. Barney's ability to testify was not contingent on her status as a student at BYU, or even on her residing in the state of Utah. OK
5. Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO disclose otherwise-unknown government investigative techniques? No. How do you know?
6. Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO jeopardize anyone's life or safety? No. The details were still kept within the BYUHCO, and no one inside HCO was threatening Barney's life or safety. The only person who was conceivably a threat to Barney's life or safety was her attacker, Seidu; who already had a copy of the police report at the time Randolph called his tip into BYU. OK...what if she was staying at another location and was fearing for her safety?? Its entirely possible esp in the case where a suspect knows where she lives.
8. Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO provide Barney's contact information to BYUHCO? This isn't clear from the news coverage; and even if it did--you're suggesting that Barney's own university didn't have her address and phone number before getting the police report? Really? OK- agreed they probably had her address....what if she was staying at another location and was fearing for her safety?? Its entirely possible esp in the case where a suspect knows where she lives.
[Unnumbered] Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO describe medical history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, evaluation, or similar medical data? That's the strongest case you have, and it's not going to get you to "beyond a reasonable doubt" you'd need for a criminal conviction proving "illegal" behavior because of the following weaknesses:
- Even assuming the July 31, 2016 story you cite is accurate (more on that in a moment) that BYUPD "shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam"—this could cover anything from “yes, the exam showed there was sex” to “yes, the exam showed there was forcible sex” to a detailed review of anatomy, anatomical irregularities, fluid samples and so on. The latter types of statements are clearly more problematic than the former Agreed and that disclosure still violates the statute.
- The story you cite is based on handwritten notes from the Honor Code Office investigator—notes that the Tribune accessed but is refusing to pass on to the general public for independent judgment; so we have to take their word for it. And the Tribune’s first analysis of those notes was actually published over a month earlier, on June 15, 2016. In that story (http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3956084&itype=CMSID) there is reference to "intimate details" being passed on to HCO but no suggestion that they were "medical details". Here ya go : But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4105633&itype=CMSID Is the later reference to “intimate details from the medical records” based on the authors having gone back and re-evaluated the notes? Or is it simply an authorial “mistake” of the sort you and I have both made in this discussion? And let’s not forget, this is the same Salt Lake Tribune that willfully concealed from its readers, for over a year, the fact that Barney had voluntarily begun sexual relations with Seidu.
- Context matters here. The June 15, 2016 article includes the text of an email that the BYUHCO investigator first sent to BYUPD, which states that what they were investigating was the possibility that Barney had made a false report. BYUPD’s providing BYUHCO with a summary of the police report, and the fact that a rape kit had been run, actually exonerated Barney of the original accusation. This takes the officer into the "good faith" exception to GRAMA's remedy provision. It wasn’t BYUPD’s fault that other data in the same report (not the medical data) also confirmed Barney had been dealing falsely with the University; Barney's got no one but herself to blame there. That said, don't you think if BYU believed BArney might be lying to Provo PD, they should have let Provo PD investigate that??? They never even told Provo PD about this.
Also, let's be blunt here: Even if it were crystal clear that BYUPD did not provide any medical data, however vague or conclusory, to BYUHCO; I don't think you'd be willing to exonerate BYUPD. I absolutely would not exonerate them. They accessed the record, shared the info and kicked her out of the school for it. While the Honor code violatation is legit, they illegally accessed a police report and used it to kick someone out of school. If they would have waited 72 hrs for the report to come marching in , there would not be any problem today. The problem is their access and how they abused it. This is only one case. If they were so nonchalant about communicating their legal violation by email one has to wonder what the heck they are doing over there. Apparently Provo PD, Salt Lake CTY SO and the State all agree with me thus the big investigation into their access history which is quite extensive for a virtually crime free campus I might add..You fundamentally hate the fact that Barney's deceit was uncovered using publicly-available information; and the medical business is more a pretext than anything else. I don't hate the fact it was uncovered. I hate the fact the Police department at BYU feels it can violate the law all in the name of kicking someone out of school. They were so brazen about it, one must wonder what else they are up to.
[Unnumbered] Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy? Again, depends on the details given; but you seem to think that a person has a right to privacy whilst engaging in theft by deception. I’m not willing to go that far. Im not alleging invasion of privacy, Im alleging illegal access of a report. Theft by deception??? That is a far stretch. Like I said before. If BYU wants to go that route they should have been doing it all along. Even BYU isn't sayin g that is what it was. You are just pulling excuses for them out of your butt.
I’m well aware of all this, being somewhat familiar with the Utah UCJIS system myself. But you’re deploying two verbal sleights-of-hand here:
-
The word you used was illegal, which constitutes a violation of statute. You’re now trying to shift the discussion into one of procedure. If you’re going to tell me that as a matter of procedure a law enforcement agency can’t use database info to prevent the commission of a crime—feel free. But I’m going to reply that such a procedure, if it exists, is stupid. Yea policy and procedure. Typically organizations use those to keep its employees from violating the law...at least in LE circles. You follow policy and it ends up being a legal problem, the organization generally has to take the hit. You violate a policy that clearly outlines a procedure designed to keep you from breaking the law, then you get shot at dawn.
As for your assertion this whole thing was because BYU was preventing fraud.They already stated they made the inquiry for honor code- not fraud. You don't get to go back later and change your intent when the intent was sent via e-mail. Also- if this was even the case, BYU would have done a fraud investigation and charged her. This did not happen and they don't do it. They don't get to start with this case all of a sudden. - NCIC is not Spillman; and regardless of the conditions applying to NCIC use, the salient rules here are the ones applying to Spillman. Yep I said that and the access rules I have seen and published here ae nearly the same...Need a legal purpose to access the report. Honor code is not a legal reason.
By the way, speaking of verbal sleights-of-hand: Why would you have earlier told me that there was a procedure BYU could have utilized to get the report had they really wanted it; if you really held the position you’re now advancing—to wit, that there’s no way BYU could have received that information through a legally or procedurally appropriate mechanism? Sleight of hand??? They can ask Provo PD for the report. If PPD gives it to them, well then the legality of the sharing of info isn't a problem for BYU at that point.
If Barney had withdrawn from BYU, or voluntarily reported her indiscretion, immediately after violating the honor code; then sure—the only question would have been whether Barney sincerely intended to keep the honor code at the time she enrolled. But Barney didn’t withdraw, and she didn’t begin the repentance process. Rather she continued to pass herself off as honor-code compliant, knowing that that was a condition precedent to her agreement with BYU; and she continued to receive services and an education from the University. Yea this is what we need....the police arresting students for fraud if they don't confess and start the repentence process...lol do you hear yourself??? What do you want a religion enforcement agency??? You need to move to Afghanistan, they would love you there. Funny how my Pioneer ancestors left not only England and New England for freedom from religious persecution and now all these years later we have LDS people supporting using the Police to enforce the Word of Wisdom and Chastity law.
As a police officer would well know, the immediate issue isn’t whether you see “prison time”—that’s for the judge and the lawyers to work out. The issue is whether it appears a statute is being violated. I agree...what is your point?
Also, your talk of a polygraph is a red herring since polygraphs aren't generally admissible evidence in court proceedings. That was referring to your claim that someone applying for BYU and agreeing to the Honor Code without intent to follow it should be investigated for fraud....If you wan to do that, you would have to hook them up to a polygraph while they sign their paperwork if you want to find out if they truly intend on doing that.
Of course it furthers their agenda; it’s identifying the individual from whom they can seek financial restitution and deterring future acts that harm the church’s financial interests. As you say, though, it's also a crime; and state resources can be used in addressing or preventing crimes (like theft)--even against religious institutions.
Barney made it BYU’s business when she a) entered into a contract, b) ceased performing her obligations under the contract, c) concealed the fact that she was no longer performing her obligations under the contract, and d) continued to collect benefits under the contract. Barney’s behavior was as much BYU’s business as Bernie Madoff’s behavior was the business of his clients. I agree it is BYUs business...they still need to obey the law. This ultimately will cost BYU more than they have saved by honor coding someone.
Because as I said earlier in this thread, “whether BYU elects to pursue charges after-the-fact does not deprive them of the right to seek law enforcement assistance in preventing deceptive thefts that are in progress or are about to occur.”
Yea- well if that is what they want to do, then perhaps they should start. If the last...well forever in the history of BYU is any indicator, the fraud aspect doesn't seem to be of the least concern. It is a concern of image of the church and that is just fine. Problem is no one respects image when it is a result of using a police force to enforce morality.ON EDIT: Here is the latest annual security report. https://police.byu.edu/sites/police.byu.edu/files/provo-cr2017.pdf
ZERO cases of theft or fraud for three years, yet all these people kicked out for honor code...Thieves, liars and fraudsters...but no one charged. BYU and the PD don't care. It is 100% image and maintenance of honor code. That's ok, just do it legally.
-
Well if you are at the "Y" (BYU) probably not. It is a very serious offense. The police there can surely decide for you though.
In the real world...ur ok bro and yea that's an awesome beard
-
23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
You don't read very well, do you? Did you even read the article you linked to?
Look, you're apparently going to believe what you want to believe even though the words on the page don't say what you want them to mean. So, I don't see the point in walking you through it. But, no, that didn't refute what I had said before.
I can only guess that you're so blinded by what you want to see, that you don't even see what I'm getting at or what the BYU PD actually said and what the Honor Code Office's involvement was.
Ok- I give up. What am I missing? Just quote it from the article if its so easy to see.
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
If the Bishop thought all the Young Men would take it in good faith like my son, he probably would have. But, I'm thinking he knew that the other Young Men would take it like you would've taken it - "What a pharisee that bishop is!".
My son has been dating a Catholic girl for over 3 years now. They've known each other since they were babies but they live halfway across the USA from each other. Well, correction - she WAS a Catholic. She's LDS now. My son baptized her last Christmas.
Well you are such a nice mom. Cool she joined the church.
I know many parents that go nuclear over that. My family included.
-
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:
The honor code office apparently has been working hand in hand with BYU PD. I find it highly unlikely that
the honor code office likely has a policy in place that tells employees
So, you don't know. That is what I was getting at. When I get into debates like this with my anti-Mormon, liberal friend, we can often come to a recognition of facts. But at some point, we have to admit that much of our conclusions are because of our own biases and suspicions rather than the facts at hand.
Here ya go---practically holding hands:
But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam.
I'm pointing out to you that when you accuse a party of unethical behavior AND illegal behavior, you need to first get your facts straight and then determine if the accusation fits the facts. And the fact is that you don't know. But you're using words like "unethical" and "illegal" based on suspicion alone.
It doesn't matter how closely the Honor Code office works with the BYU PD -- another fact you have yet to prove (but admittedly, I've been gone from this thread for a couple pages and have not caught up). The fact is that any individual from the office who DIRECTLY received a document from a police officer would have no reason to suspect that it was illegally obtained.
If BYU does not have a policy in place (at that time) re report sharing etc...then they are severely mistaken.
maybe BYU didn't and that will be a problem for them.
At least you're leaving yourself open to the possibility of being wrong. That's something I can appreciate from someone on the other side of a debate.
Yep, and lack of or inadequate policy wont excuse the behavior legally, will just allow an employee off the hook maybe. If they dont have a policy in place for this stuff, then they have been operating in a legally permissive environment for way too long.
Randolph knew what he was doing was wrong and so did BYU PD/ Honor code office.
Did I not already admit that he should have been terminated? Yes I did. But for some reasons, you keep harping back to a point of agreement as if it would support your interpretation of a point of disagreement.
-
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Again, under state law the report is presumed public unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Can you name what statutory exceptions should have applied here; and can you say for certain that the BYUPD officer’s oral statements violated these exceptions?
Before releasing an initial contact report, a records officer should consider whether the entire report or any of the information contained within it should be restricted. Following are some protected categories to consider.
The report or information within it should be protected if disclosure would:
1) reasonably interfere with an investigation (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 305(10)(a));..............Provo PD thought so and BYU should have respected that. Instead they suspended the student
...
5) reasonably could be expected to disclose investigative techniques, procedures, policies, or orders not generally known outside of government (Utah Code Section 63G-2-(10)(e);
6) jeopardize someone’s life or safety (Utah Code Section 63G-2-305(11));
...
8) reveal a home address or telephone number that was provided in order to comply with a law, ordinance, rule, or order and with the reasonable expectation that it will remain confidential (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 305(51)(a) and (b). Utah Code Section 63G-2-301 – Public records (3) The following records are normally public, but to the extent that a record is expressly exempt from disclosure, access may be restricted under Subsection 63G-2-201(3)(b), Section 63G-2-302, 63G-2-304, or 63G-2-305; ….. .. (g) chronological logs and initial contact reports. 4 Revision April 2017
Reports or information within them should be restricted and classified as private when disclosure would: 1) describe a person’s medical history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation (Utah Code Section 63G-2-302(1)(b)), or 2) be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 301(2)(d).
Yea I can safely say the BYU PD officer violated the act. He shared the physical exam details with the honor police. That is a violation. more on that later.
Can you say for certain that HIPAA-protected data was among the information relayed verbally to BYUHCO by BYUPD?
But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam.
You said the release was illegal. Not against procedure or contrary to training—illegal. So, what law was violated? The one above ..GRAMA Or is thus yet another example of your magically mutant vocabulary?
Since you are not a cop I'll tell you how this works.
Before getting access to these systems and databases, there is manadatory training. Some is on statute, some is procedure, some is admin, but all of it is training. Nationwide it is very similar as the people who have access to these databases also have access to NCIC (loookitup). NCIC has very strict compliance requirements. Most if not all states I have ever dealt with have structured their access rules to mirror that requirement. Generaly in this training officers are educated on penalties for misuse, neglect, unauthorized access etc..
https://bci.utah.gov/ucjis-user-training/officer-certification-on-ucjis-files/Here is an example of a violation of NCIC access rules: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/us-attorney-charges-former-police-dispatcher-unauthorized-use-crime-computers
You’re part right; in reviewing the definitions within the Utah Criminal Code, it might not be “fraud”. But lying about a condition precedent to a financial transaction is most certainly “theft by deception”. UCA 76-6-405. Read the statute. Keeping the honor code is a condition precedent to enrolling at BYU and receiving a $30K education for $6K.
Whether BYU elects to pursue charges after-the-fact does not deprive them of the right to seek law enforcement assistance in preventing deceptive thefts that are in progress or are about to occur.That would require a polygraph to determine whether or not the applicant intends on violating the contract. The remedy for violation of a contract is nearly always a civil law suit, not prison. Sure that happens from time to time, but in the scope of school admissions, tuition etc...Im not seeing prison time for violations being used.
I have (except for a church shooting) and charges are filed when appropriate.
Even when doing so “furthers the interest of a religious organization”? How very First-Amendment-violative of you.
Taking a report on a broken window at an LDS building is not furthering their religious agenda. It is documenting a crime which has taken place against them. If I was to arrest some priest for ditching church and taking him back to church then I would be guilty of kidnapping. The police cannot access police reports with the express purpose of investigating an honor code violation. It is a non-criminal issue. Now if later on BYU got the report from Provo PD and after reading whatver they release to them, well that is different. The information is released as a part of public record. Cases that BYU investigates themselves probably can be uses to honor code someone...like drinking in the dorm, smoking a cig on campus, having a girl in your dorm etc.. Those probably generate a police report and since the person is on-campus it becomes the schools business. Barney alleged the incident took place off-campus thus the reason Provo PD investigated. Again, none of BYUs biz.
Cops dont get to release active investigations to a church when they have no legal interest in it, much less details of a gyno sex assault exam which would go to help determine whether or not intercourse (forcible or not) had taken place, existence of semen, foreign pubic hair, presence of STDs etc...I think you get the point. That is what the BYU cop gave them and shame on him. If you think that is a justifiable release of info then so be it-That info was none of BYUs business.
Why dont you go find a case of BYU getting someone tossed in prison for pre-marital consensual sex and perhaps we can discuss this non-sense further. Until then, the BYU PD is a govt entity and they have no business being the morality police.
The 1st was enacted on dec 15, 1791
. . . and applied only to the federal government, not states or municipalities, well into the twentieth century; as I outlined above.
Can we agree that whenever it took place was well before this Barney case? If so, its not an issue
Lastly as for your assertion the BYU PD is private...
-
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Paranoia strikes deep . . .
so you really don't know how to operate your computer..thx
-
15 minutes ago, zil said:
@Just_A_Guy - remove the square brackets and "s" - or put spaces before / after the brackets: [ s ] and [ / s ] - otherwise, it sees them as BB codes for strikethrough.
i think she is doing that just to get me fired up. Im pretty sure she isn't that stupid
-
23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Well, I'm not going to stop you from rebutting your own presumptions. The point, of course, is that BYUHCO got involved first because they believed Barney might be making a false police report (which is a violation of the honor code); and then because they learned that she was having consensual sex (another violation).
I already acknowledged that he looked up the report, and verbally passed on salient details to HCO. He did not, of course, pass the entire document on to BYUHCO.
Now, as to this word "illegal" . . . I went ahead and looked up the statute, rather than just relying on the Tribune's characterization thereof as I did earlier. You are correct that (contra the Tribune's restatement of the statute) the penalty applies to anyone who has access to private, controlled, or protected records as defined in statute; not just public employees. The million-dollar question then becomes whether those records are indeed "private, controlled, or protected" records. Previously you've suggested that BYU "know the protocol for getting these reports"--hinting that BYU could have gotten the report via legal means if they'd just worked through channels. The thing is, if the report was obtainable through a GRAMA [Government Records Access and Management Act] request, then that would have been because the report was not considered private, controlled, or protected; which would mean that the criminal penalties of Utah Code Ann. 63G-2-801 don't apply.
Yep, if BYU wanted the report, they can request it and if it meets certain criteria for public release, then it likely can be released. Generally in a sex assault report, HIPPA stuff is redacted along with much of the victim's info. That said, it is not up to the police Lieutenant at said agency to just go look it up and pass on the info without it being vetted, redacted etc. As it was an ongoing investigation with Provo PD, Im 100% certain they would have denied the request...esp to honor code someone. TFurthermore, GRAMA begins with the presumption that police reports are public unless one of a series of exceptions apply; in which case only the part of the report that violates that exception (not the entire document) is non-public. Utah Code 63G-2-103(14) and -301(3); for a nonexhaustive sum-up, see also https://archives.utah.gov/opengovernment/What-Does-GRAMA-say-about-Police-Reports.pdf). While one potential reason for nondisclosure is that disclosure could reasonably interfere with an investigation or deny a person a right to a fair trial or impartial hearing, there is no evidence that this was the case in Seidu's prosecution. (Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman specifically told the Tribune in April of 2016--when he knew that BYU had accessed the police report--that BYU had not acted unlawfully and that even if Barney had to return to her home state, Seidu's prosecution would go forward.)
And finally, even if it turns out that someone somehow botched the GRAMA classifications and there was a prima facie violation of GRAMA's remedy statute, subsection (d) of 63G-2-801 provides a defense if "the public employee or other person disclosed, provided, or used the record based on a good faith belief that the disclosure, provision, or use was in accordance with the law."
Given the nature of public records access and the training that officer received prior to being granted access to the system...there is no way he can justify or even show any good faith for giving the info to the honor code people. If he did think it was ok, then there is a huge institutional problem there and it needs to be fixed. Part of the fixing would likey be going back to find out who had been honor coded with improperly accessed police reports and the lawsuits sure to follow.
So, "news" that "broke" doesn't necessarily refer to "news media", just like "steal" doesn't necessarily mean "stealing". Any other magic vocabulary I should be aware of here?
Oh, you believe that BYU as an institution did nothing wrong vis a vis police reports?
What are you referring to?
She's receiving a private-university education that would cost $30-$40K per year at other schools, for under $6,000 per year. BYU gives her this deal in exchange for her promise to, inter alia, live a chaste life. Law enforcement has as much right to intervene as they would if, in the midst of my selling a "lightly used" car to you for $10,000, a highway patrolman were to walk up and say "excuse me, Paracaidista508, but I happen to know that that particular car has a salvage title and is only worth about $3,000."
No they don't. if they did, it would be a normal procedure to charge people with fraud. Im calling bull puckey on that one
Current students don't have to be charged with fraud, because BYU simply expels them (or, at its option, attempts to rehabilitate them) if it finds out about it in a timely manner. And the law recognizes a difference between preventing current crime (including fraud) versus disclosing past crime (again, including fraud)--defense attorneys have no duty to disclose their client's past crimes; but they do have a duty to warn potential victims of a crime they believe their clients are about to commit; so it's perfectly rational for BYU to choose not to pursue past frauds perpetrated by ex-students.
It isn't a crime...BYU would say do in their honor code policy if it was. If it was there would be people charged.
So when you were a cop, you chose not to investigate crimes committed against religious organizations and/or their members?
Honor code is not a crime
You didn't respond to calls of church vandalism, or church arson, or a church shooting?
I have (except for a church shooting) and charges are filed when appropritate. Honor code violation is not a crime.
The First Amendment wasn't incorporated as to states and municipalities until 1931 (free press) and 1947 (anti-establishment of religion). Thanks for playing, though.
The 1st was enacted on dec 15, 1791
Apparently not a crime to access and disseminate public data, as per my writings above.
That made my day. Thanks, bud.
-
3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
Or I can call out your hate for what it is in the hope that you'll get help.. After all you are all about trying to help someone you have no stewardship over aren't you?
-
28 minutes ago, Traveler said:
I thought to add something here – Title 9 generally is not doing well (what was intended). There are unintended consequences. Also having the experience of suffering greatly through an IRS audit I have learned that an investigation that is going on by the govt is not the sign that justice is the intent or the inevitable result. When a lawyer must be hired and paid more than the maximum fine – regardless of the investigation results – justice is not served by any stretch of the imagination.
The Traveler
yea that is the irs, not the state level le office. they likely cant levy fines, only criminal charges if necessary.
-
31 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
And anything that they did wrong will be corrected by those who have both the stewardship and authority to do so. Neither of which you hold.. so it is pretty clear your agenda can't be anything good. So quit trying to convince us you are doing anything less they grinding your own personal axe
Sorry you don't like my posts...either ignore me or get used to it
-
Just now, estradling75 said:
Oh please your complaints are totally yours... own them...
As for a knife it seems that BYU is doing just fine inspite of haters like yourself
BYU pd isn't doing fine, neither is the title9 office and neither is the honor code people...as for the rest of the school I'm sure you are correct.
As for the complaints being totally mine I can own whatever but doesn't take away from the fact they are doing serious damage control to make this whole thing go away....you know the compliant /investigation that is going on right now by the govt and not me.
-
4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
you are at looking for a reason to complain and stick a knife in them
they did a fine job doing that all on their own
-
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:
Okay, this is what the whole deal was about - this is, of course, stated from a hindsight is 20/20 point of view so we didn't know at the time when the Bishop talked to my son what the entire thing was about.
Some of the Young Men started wearing bowties. The bowties became a clique thing... they started sitting together, etc., like they're a member of this bowtie club, excluding other non-bowtie-wearing Young Men. The Bishop noticed this and instead of going to the "bowtie club" to discourage the Young Men in forming cliques, he instead approached just ONE Young Man. My son. He chose my son because he believed my son has a lot of faith and has a strong connection to the Spirit in his exercise of his priesthood. He was a deacon at that time. We didn't understand this, so we told our son that if he chooses to ignore the request of the Bishop we will support him on it. My son chose to sustain the Bishop. So he stopped wearing bowties. And sure enough, not too long after my son stopped wearing bowties, the clique disbanded and the Young Men became a cohesive group once again. As I stated, the original bowtie wearing Welshman never was asked to stop wearing bowties and so until today he still sometimes wears his bowties. There are also Young Men that occasionally wear bowties, even today, but the bowtie clique is gone never to be seen again. And that was through a simple act of the Bishop to talk to one young man and that young man's faith in sustaining his bishop. My son gained that testimony through that experience and he so bore that testimony on the podium without needing to mention bowties.
Hmm ok he could have just told him so. That's why I'll never be a bishop cuz I'll just say it like it is and people do t like that.
So not wanting to be cliquish...is your son only allowed to date Mormon girls??? Kidding of course.
-
6 minutes ago, Vort said:
Um yes you did, at least implicitly:
This is tax talk, not tithing talk. Tithing is not yours, even the tiny slice you contribute. You have zero say in where those dollars go. You are entitled to zero say in where those dollars go.
And thus......since it is not our money, which I agree with, we have no expectation of those who draw salary from it to obey the law and keep us from spending even more of it to fend off law suits?
So do church employees have no direction to spend funds wisely? Do we clean our own buildings because we feel like it or because it is a cost savings measure along with a few other reasons? Are church leaders bound to ensure budgets are spent properly to be good stewards of tithing and not waste it?
If all those things apply, then do they not apply to byu pd also? I believe they do.
-
On 3/16/2018 at 11:39 AM, anatess2 said:
Probably because you're a new convert or the bishop just doesn't think white shirt is necessary in your ward. You get this instruction when you move from Primary to Deacon for lifetime members. It's like one of those "milestone" moments for primary kids. For converts, bishops usually just want you to be comfortable in your new church environment.
And the reason I know this is because... my 2 sons got this instruction but the new convert who is a Welshman in our ward wore his customary blue shirt and bowtie. The young men, including my son, started wearing bowties and it became a "thing" - like being a member of some bowtie club and young men wearing bowties started sitting with each other in priesthood. The bishop asked to meet with my son and he asked him to start wearing regular ties again. He was upset (he thought he was singled out because he was the only one that had this instruction from the bishop) and my husband told him, you can continue to wear bowties if you like (he was also upset) and my husband will handle it with the bishop. But my son did not want that. Starting the next Sunday my son wore a regular tie because he wants to sustain the bishop. The bowtie club naturally disbanded soon after my son stopped wearing a bowtie. After a while, the Welshman realized the bowtie club disbanded. He probably did some pondering or something because soon after that, he started wearing a regular tie. Then soon after that he started wearing a white shirt. The bishop never asked him to do so. The bishop never talked about bowties with anybody else except my son. My son wanted to bear his testimony about this incident - about sustaining the bishop - but he decided to not share it because he didn't want to make the other kids uncomfortable about their bowties. So, as far as we know, the bishop only gave the instruction to my son and nobody else was aware that there was such an instruction. That was around 4 years ago and the Welshman has long since been ordained a Melchizedek priest and has not passed nor blessed sacrament in years. He sometimes goes to church with his blue shirt and bowtie but most of the time he is wearing a white shirt and regular tie.
So other that the two mentions of your son wanting to sustain the bishop- which you maintain you never wrote- what in the world are you talking about? Just point it out to me...I'm stupid so just make it easy
-
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:
He was not debating if BYU is funded by tithing. He was countering your sense of entitlement to control where tithing is spent. On that front you are 100 percent wrong.
Um I never said I should be the one to control where tithing is spent.
-
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:
You don’t get anything. I never said that in my post. You are completely missing the testimony. You’re too hung up on your desire to paint my bishop as a bowtie policeman to see how the bishop was inspired.
Yea you wanted him to "sustain" the Bishop. I get it- even if it was a made up rule or standard.
-
3 hours ago, Vort said:
Not your tithing dollars. Tithing is not a tax.
Im pretty sure BYU is substantially funded by tithing dollars.
The MTC Abuse Story
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by paracaidista508
Yep they did request to meet barney...after the byu pd illegally accessed the police report in the Spillman database. Upon advice of her attorney, she refused to meet. Provo pd also asked byu to delay the honor code thing till the case was tried in court. They said...nope were doing it anyway.